Why So Many Christians Are Relaxing over Drinks - As colleges drop drinking bans, some see alcohol as a moral good.

The fervor this thread has generated is interesting. The lengths people will go to justify a harmful activity! The depths of our own sin is on full display here. The slippery slope from drinking “in moderation” to drunkenness is so quick, so sudden and so slippery that it is very advisable for men to avoid it all-together. How does the potential harm of this activity, both for ourselves and our testimony at large, reflect upon the holiness of our Holy God (1 Pet 1:15-16)?

[TylerR]

The fervor this thread has generated is interesting. The lengths people will go to justify a harmful activity! The depths of our own sin is on full display here. The slippery slope from drinking “in moderation” to drunkenness is so quick, so sudden and so slippery that it is very advisable for men to avoid it all-together. How does the potential harm of this activity, both for ourselves and our testimony at large, reflect upon the holiness of our Holy God (1 Pet 1:15-16)?

Agreed!

But apparently according to some if you ignore common sense study and interpretation of the Bible about “God’s gift” then you can have at it.

Having been (regretfully) involved throughout this discussion it seems best that we not judge the motives of anyone’s comments — including those of Tyler and Martin.

[Brenda T]

Having been (regretfully) involved throughout this discussion it seems best that we not judge the motives of anyone’s comments — including those of Tyler and Martin.

I may have misread, but I didn’t see that Greg judged the motives of TylerR or mmartin. What he’s asking for is for “him that eateth not” to not judge “him that eateth.” “For God hath received him.” And yes, there has been “despising” from some of those who partake upon those who don’t, but as far as I can tell, that hasn’t been nearly as big part of this thread as the judgment.

In any case, I’m fairly sure it’s not conservative viewpoints that are being disdained, but the manner in which those viewpoints are argued, as if those who don’t just obviously see the same way are deluded and deceived. Disagreement is not the same as disdain.

As I know from being on the conservative end of the music discussion around here (at least in practice, if not in the typical fundamentalist rhetoric behind it), it’s entire possible to argue a point without it degrading into expressing judgment on those who don’t see the music issue my way. It seems like the types of statements that Greg is decrying always show up when those who hold the positions behind them either can’t or don’t want to waste the time in coming up with good arguments resort to such as a “nuclear option” to try to declare victory without actually winning. I agree completely with Greg that these are not helpful at all. I could easily assume that those who want to argue for the use of some CCM in a worship service just want an excuse to “rock out” and satisfy their flesh, but I don’t know that to be true, and I’m not sure how such assumptions would be at all helpful.

If you’ve read carefully, you’ve noticed that there has been a good deal of respect given on this thread for the abstinence position if not for a prohibitionist position. What seems to me to be missing is the same type of respect from those on the other side.

I didn’t see that Greg judged the motives of TylerR or mmartin.

The same could (should?) be said of Tyler and Martin then.

And, yes, I have read all the comments carefully.

[Brenda T]

I didn’t see that Greg judged the motives of TylerR or mmartin.

The same could (should?) be said of Tyler and Martin then.

And, yes, I have read all the comments carefully.

Tyler: “The depths of our own sin is on full display here”

Sorry don’t agree at all!

“The depths of our own sin is on full display here”

That’s expressing an opinion based on observation; it doesn’t address anyone’s motives. Notice, I haven’t said anything about the merits (or demerits) of that opinion. And, notice how he included himself in the statement with the word “our” just as I include myself in the admonition that we (none of us) should judge motives or accuse others of doing so.

I can’t judge motives Brenda. Arguments should not be won or lost based on motives or intent, but logical interpretations of scripture. From way back since I haven’t had time to reply:

[Shaynus]

[Brenda T]

I have seen at least 4 logical fallacies that have been employed by the pro-drinking side in this discussion thread. If we’re going to start pointing out logical fallacies of argumentation, point them all out.

Such as name-calling? “Pro-drinking” isn’t the same thing as “allow people to drink.”

[Brenda T]

“Pro” means “to be in favor of”. It doesn’t mean that you do it yourself. There are people who are pro gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean they will marry someone of the same sex. It simply means they are in favor of it as a permissible, allowable thing (i.e. they are not against it) and they will argue that it should be allowed for others.

I certainly had no derogatory or name-calling intent with my attempt to identify a view.

Here’s the thing, Brenda, fallacies have little to do with intent or motives. They are failings (fallacy) to argue logically according to set rules handed down for 3,000 years through trial and error. I would say most all discussing on this thread have good motives for making their view known, but some have done better than others at actually making that argument clearly and logically from Scripture, history, science ect. Do you really want to point out all the logical errors on both sides? Then do it. But don’t pretend the side you argue is logically lock tight when we all know people are persuaded believe different positions on this issue by emotions. Whether it’s drunkard fathers and family members or appeals to the pleasant effects of wine and beer it’s really the emotional level we’re arguing on. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

And your appeal to compare “pro-gay marriage” to “pro-drinking” is itself illogical. Whereas I want people to be allowed to follow their own conscience in the area of alcohol, gay-marriage proponents want everyone to be held to their conscience. Calling the position of someone like Bob Hayton “Pro-drinking” stacks the deck in an unfair way, regardless of your intent.

Do you really want to point out all the logical errors on both sides?

No, I don’t. Todd’s much better at that than me, so I thought he would be the best to point out all the logical errors.

But don’t pretend the side you argue is logically lock tight

I don’t remember pretending anything of the sort. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to help me remember by pointing out where I pretended that.

And your appeal to compare “pro-gay marriage” to “pro-drinking” is itself illogical.

I was only giving an example to explain what “pro” meant. Sorry to have led you to think I was comparing those two things.

Calling the position of someone like Bob Hayton “Pro-drinking” stacks the deck in an unfair way, regardless of your intent.

I see now I should have used the phrase “pro-alcohol.” John E wrote “pro-alcohol” to identify their position and no one got bothered by it.

[TylerR]

The fervor this thread has generated is interesting. The lengths people will go to justify a harmful activity! The depths of our own sin is on full display here. The slippery slope from drinking “in moderation” to drunkenness is so quick, so sudden and so slippery that it is very advisable for men to avoid it all-together. How does the potential harm of this activity, both for ourselves and our testimony at large, reflect upon the holiness of our Holy God (1 Pet 1:15-16)?

‘pro-alcohol’ to identify their position and no one got bothered by it.”

Now that you put it that way, I’m bothered by it :)

To be clear, “judging motives” is making a pronouncement not only about what someone is doing, but why they are doing it.

Indeed.

I stand by my admonition that we (including me) not judge the motives of others or accuse others of doing so.

Guys, thanks for all the discussion. It’s been real. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

The depths of our own sin is on display in that there is a willingness to justify an activity (drinking alcohol) which we would all consider extremely ripe for abuse. I was condemning nobody in particular, but speaking against the proclivity for sinful men and women to engage in this potentially harmful behavior in general.

Notice that I rooted my objection in the holiness God has always commanded of his people, in any dispensation (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 1:15-16). As individual “priests” before God, as individual temples of the Holy Ghost (who is deity), surely we can all see the real dangers of this activity? Surely basic standards of holiness forces us to admit it is wiser to abstain than imbibe?

This debate will continue long after we’re all dead and gone. Let each Christian examine his own conscience and the Scriptures and come to his own honest conclusions.

Have a wonderful Lord’s Day tomorrow.